Fou 1978

Performance		0-Rank	0-Score	1-Rank	1-Score	2-Rank	2-Score	3-Rank	3-Score	3R-Rank	3R-Score	4-Rank	4-Score	NED
Afanassiev 2001		19	0.41	50	0.00	26	0.08	28	0.39	23	0.46	22	0.42
Anderszewski 2003		15	0.42	25	0.00	13	0.12	10	0.58	5	0.70	7	0.64
Ashkenazy 1981		2	0.55	2	0.08	2	0.29	2	0.77	15	0.75	1	0.76
Bacha 2000		27	0.38	18	0.01	27	0.07	18	0.45	9	0.56	16	0.50
Badura 1965		13	0.43	6	0.04	5	0.15	8	0.62	1	0.77	2	0.69
Barbosa 1983		49	0.31	55	0.00	52	0.05	49	0.05	42	0.13	58	0.08
Biret 1990		87	0.11	83	0.00	87	0.04	68	0.04	74	0.04	81	0.04
Blet 2003		55	0.30	66	0.00	71	0.03	81	0.03	55	0.07	68	0.05
Block 1995		28	0.37	58	0.00	21	0.08	19	0.45	30	0.42	21	0.43
Blumental 1952		20	0.41	8	0.02	8	0.12	9	0.62	6	0.71	5	0.66
Boshniakovich 1969		39	0.35	7	0.03	20	0.08	21	0.43	28	0.42	23	0.42
Brailowsky 1960		47	0.32	12	0.01	34	0.07	36	0.25	15	0.58	27	0.38
Bunin 1987		62	0.28	31	0.00	68	0.05	54	0.05	58	0.06	72	0.05
Bunin 1987b		61	0.28	47	0.00	67	0.04	62	0.04	56	0.06	65	0.05
Chiu 1999		8	0.47	54	0.00	19	0.09	20	0.43	37	0.27	31	0.34
Cohen 1997		64	0.28	87	0.00	78	0.03	78	0.03	42	0.17	59	0.07
Cortot 1951		75	0.23	51	0.00	81	0.03	77	0.03	44	0.12	62	0.06
Csalog 1996		73	0.24	52	0.00	75	0.03	83	0.03	53	0.06	80	0.04
Czerny 1949		68	0.26	13	0.01	66	0.03	71	0.03	38	0.42	50	0.11
Czerny 1990		7	0.48	10	0.01	9	0.10	6	0.64	16	0.74	3	0.69
Duchoud 2007		50	0.31	61	0.00	56	0.05	57	0.05	65	0.05	70	0.05
Ezaki 2006		40	0.34	81	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	27	0.46	39	0.22
Falvay 1989		14	0.43	4	0.05	11	0.11	26	0.41	5	0.56	17	0.48
Farrell 1958		33	0.37	42	0.00	35	0.07	33	0.32	9	0.53	25	0.41
Ferenczy 1958		59	0.28	26	0.00	62	0.03	73	0.03	19	0.71	44	0.15
Fliere 1977		4	0.52	16	0.01	6	0.16	4	0.68	24	0.61	6	0.64
Fou 1978		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Francois 1956		82	0.20	63	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	54	0.06	83	0.04
Friedman 1923		37	0.35	22	0.00	37	0.07	35	0.26	43	0.28	37	0.27
Friedman 1923b		43	0.34	48	0.00	42	0.07	41	0.19	44	0.23	42	0.21
Friedman 1930		51	0.30	34	0.00	57	0.04	63	0.04	54	0.06	69	0.05
Garcia 2007		60	0.28	84	0.00	51	0.07	47	0.07	43	0.17	51	0.11
Garcia 2007b		70	0.26	49	0.00	65	0.04	60	0.04	52	0.07	75	0.05
Gierzod 1998		34	0.36	20	0.00	25	0.07	23	0.42	15	0.64	14	0.52
Gornostaeva 1994		69	0.26	67	0.00	80	0.04	67	0.04	49	0.07	73	0.05
Groot 1988		29	0.37	64	0.00	43	0.07	42	0.18	47	0.09	49	0.13
Harasiewicz 1955		21	0.41	60	0.00	31	0.09	31	0.36	33	0.24	36	0.29
Hatto 1993		16	0.42	68	0.00	23	0.10	29	0.37	36	0.25	35	0.30
Hatto 1997		44	0.34	43	0.00	50	0.07	46	0.07	40	0.15	53	0.10
Horowitz 1949		77	0.23	72	0.00	73	0.03	76	0.03	63	0.05	79	0.04
Indjic 1988		36	0.35	73	0.00	49	0.05	58	0.05	52	0.08	61	0.06
Kapell 1951		30	0.37	39	0.00	29	0.09	27	0.39	24	0.36	30	0.37
Kissin 1993		17	0.42	59	0.00	12	0.12	13	0.53	17	0.65	10	0.59
Kushner 1989		9	0.47	37	0.00	14	0.12	11	0.57	11	0.58	11	0.57
Luisada 1991		38	0.35	17	0.01	38	0.07	40	0.21	44	0.22	40	0.21
Lushtak 2004		24	0.38	32	0.00	18	0.09	17	0.45	7	0.59	15	0.52
Malcuzynski 1961		26	0.38	19	0.01	36	0.07	37	0.23	35	0.20	41	0.21
Magaloff 1978		58	0.29	15	0.01	44	0.07	44	0.14	45	0.12	47	0.13
Magin 1975		72	0.24	38	0.00	69	0.04	65	0.04	46	0.10	60	0.06
Michalowski 1933		76	0.23	74	0.00	74	0.03	86	0.03	56	0.07	67	0.05
Milkina 1970		63	0.28	75	0.00	64	0.04	61	0.04	39	0.23	52	0.10
Mohovich 1999		57	0.29	65	0.00	58	0.04	64	0.04	56	0.06	71	0.05
Moravec 1969		23	0.39	24	0.00	32	0.10	30	0.36	17	0.47	24	0.41
Morozova 2008		3	0.52	3	0.06	3	0.21	3	0.69	7	0.64	4	0.66
Neighaus 1950		46	0.32	44	0.00	47	0.05	50	0.05	65	0.05	74	0.05
Niedzielski 1931		32	0.37	21	0.00	41	0.06	43	0.15	45	0.12	48	0.13
Ohlsson 1999		18	0.41	14	0.01	15	0.11	15	0.48	18	0.45	19	0.46
Osinska 1989		84	0.18	88	0.00	85	0.03	72	0.03	78	0.03	84	0.03
Pachmann 1927		53	0.30	11	0.01	39	0.07	38	0.23	39	0.29	38	0.26
Paderewski 1930		71	0.25	45	0.00	59	0.03	74	0.03	50	0.07	66	0.05
Perlemuter 1992		42	0.34	30	0.00	40	0.06	39	0.23	36	0.42	34	0.31
Pierdomenico 2008		56	0.30	76	0.00	72	0.03	75	0.03	55	0.05	77	0.04
Poblocka 1999		25	0.38	9	0.01	10	0.11	16	0.46	14	0.46	18	0.46
Rabcewiczowa 1932		79	0.22	89	0.00	77	0.02	87	0.02	45	0.13	64	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		48	0.31	56	0.00	53	0.05	55	0.05	39	0.18	55	0.09
Rangell 2001		31	0.37	40	0.00	30	0.09	22	0.42	13	0.48	20	0.45
Richter 1976		10	0.47	23	0.00	16	0.12	12	0.55	32	0.58	13	0.56
Rosen 1989		22	0.40	27	0.00	24	0.09	24	0.42	36	0.35	29	0.38
Rosenthal 1930		45	0.33	69	0.00	48	0.05	51	0.05	22	0.45	45	0.15
Rosenthal 1931		65	0.27	46	0.00	46	0.06	48	0.06	19	0.59	43	0.19
Rosenthal 1931b		74	0.24	77	0.00	54	0.04	59	0.04	26	0.50	46	0.14
Rosenthal 1931c		80	0.21	71	0.00	79	0.03	82	0.03	66	0.04	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.14	78	0.00	76	0.03	80	0.03	36	0.31	54	0.10
Rossi 2007		89	0.00	90	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	84	0.03	88	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		35	0.36	33	0.00	33	0.09	34	0.30	14	0.39	32	0.34
Rubinstein 1952		78	0.22	62	0.00	61	0.03	70	0.03	63	0.05	82	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		6	0.48	5	0.05	4	0.22	5	0.65	4	0.63	8	0.64
Schilhawsky 1960		85	0.17	85	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	65	0.04	86	0.03
Shebanova 2002		5	0.50	36	0.00	7	0.19	7	0.63	27	0.57	9	0.60
Smith 1975		83	0.20	57	0.00	86	0.05	53	0.05	56	0.05	63	0.05
Sokolov 2002		81	0.21	53	0.00	83	0.03	79	0.03	70	0.03	85	0.03
Sztompka 1959		12	0.45	29	0.00	22	0.07	25	0.42	28	0.41	26	0.41
Tomsic 1995		54	0.30	70	0.00	63	0.03	69	0.03	55	0.05	78	0.04
Uninsky 1932		11	0.45	35	0.00	17	0.11	14	0.51	36	0.29	28	0.38
Uninsky 1971		41	0.34	28	0.00	28	0.08	32	0.35	29	0.30	33	0.32
Wasowski 1980		52	0.30	41	0.00	60	0.04	66	0.04	63	0.05	76	0.04
Zak 1937		66	0.27	79	0.00	55	0.05	52	0.05	40	0.18	56	0.09
Zak 1951		67	0.27	82	0.00	70	0.05	56	0.05	42	0.13	57	0.08
Average		1	0.61	1	0.51	1	0.50	1	0.84	25	0.39	12	0.57
Random 1		91	-0.01	86	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	73	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		88	0.00	80	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	74	0.03	89	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.01	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	58	0.03	91	0.02

Column descriptions

• Performance:
• 0-Rank/0-Score: 0-Score is equivalent to Pearson correlation of the entire data sequence between the reference performance and a test performance. 0-Rank is the sorting order of the 0-scores (highest score has a rank of 1).
• 1-Rank/1-Score: 1-Score is the area fraction covered by a particular performance in the scape plot (see image above). These values should not be taken literally, since they are sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
• 2-Rank/2-Score: 2-Score values are equivalent to 1-Score values with all higher-ranking performances removed before the calculation of the area of coverage in the scape is calculated. Improvment over the 1-Rank scores, but still somewhat sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
• 3-Rank/3-Score: Similar to 2-Rank calculations. The bottom 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are kept constant as a noise floor for the similarity measurement. Then one-by-one the top 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are superimposed with the noise-floor performances, and a 3-score is measured as the area covered in the scape. This measure is not sentisive to the Hatto Effect.
• 3R-Rank/3R-Score: Reverse 3-rank/3-scores. 3-rankings and scores are not symmetric (A->B values are different from B->A values). So this column represents similarity measures in the opposite direction.
• 4-Rank/4-Score: The geometric mean between 3-scores and 3R-scores. This column gives the best overall similarity ranking between the various performances (see color codes below).
• NED: Noise Equivalient Distance (not yet implemented)

Color codes for 3-rank listings:

• red = strongly similar performance to target
• orange = moderately similar performance
• yellow = weakly similar performance
• green = marginally similar/dissimilar performance
• white = dissimilar to target
• blue = false positive (has high 3-rank score but low 3R-rank score)

3-rank/scores are not symmetric, so the 3R-rank/score columns give the 3-rank/scores going in the opposite direction. More matches in the 3-rank column than in the 3R-rank column indicates an individualistic performance, while more matches in the 3R-rank column indicates a mainstream performance.

If a 3-rank and a 3R-rank are both marked as similar to each other, then there is a possible direct relation between the performances. If one is similar to the other but not in the reverse direction, then the similarity is more likely to be by chance (performers randomly chose a similar interpretation).